Well, it took a little longer than I had hoped, but we finally got the presses rolling for the 2013 edition of The Loser Papers. For the uninitiated, TLP consists of articles from the hometown newspapers of the Redskins' vanquished foes. It is here where you hear the other side of the story. You know, how the [team name here] shot themselves in the foot, or were robbed by the refs, or any of the other countless reasons why they lost to the Redskins.

So, without further ado, I bring you an article from the Oakland Tribune:

OAKLAND -- What started as a potentially uplifting day ended when the remnants of a home crowd of 53,549 vented its frustration upon the Raiders on Sunday at O.co Coliseum.

"We let 'em down," safety Charles Woodson said after a 24-14 loss to Washington "You heard the boos. For any team in the league, to hear your home fans boo, that's hard."

Terrelle Pryor sat out the game to further recover from a concussion, and two other crowd favorites -- running back Darren McFadden and fullback Marcel Reece -- left in the second-quarter with injuries and did not return.

Most of the boo birds were targeting quarterback Matt Flynn, who turned the ball over twice and failed to move the ball after the Raiders jumped to a 14-0 lead in the first quarter.

It started during pregame warm-ups, when Flynn was announced as the starter after coach Dennis Allen determined Saturday night that Pryor needed at least another week before playing.

But the house was rocking a short time later when Rashad Jennings blocked a Sav Rocca punt and Jeremy Stewart pounced on it in the end zone with 10:40 to play in the first quarter.

It got even louder when Flynn found rookie tight end Mychal Rivera for an 18-yard touchdown with 3:06 left in the quarter.

Flush with momentum, the Raiders (1-3) gave it all back and then some, with a gift interception from Flynn landing in the hands of Don Amerson for a 45-yard touchdown return and getting Washington within 14-10 with 10:59 left in the second quarter.

With the Raiders unable to move the ball and continually giving Washington chances, the visitors got second-half touchdowns on a 5-yard pass from Robert Griffin III to Pierre Garcon and a 14-yard run by Roy Helu, sending home both the fans and the home team disappointed.

"That one stung," Allen said. "The way we were able to start the game, block a punt, get it to 14-0 and have all the momentum ... then we let 'em back in the game."

And while the usual protocol finds an NFL coach finding ways to spread the blame equally after a loss, Allen conceded, "I thought our defense and special teams, they held their own. They did some good things."

Flynn was 21 of 32 for 227 yards with one touchdown, the interception for a touchdown and two fumbles, one that he lost and one that he recovered on a fourth-and-1 play to give Washington the ball on downs.

Washington (1-3) had seven sacks, in part because Flynn was reluctant to let the ball go and also because defenders came hard and fast knowing they weren't concerned with Pryor getting outside for big yardage.

The touchdown by Amerson, which Woodson said "let the air out of the bubble" while the Raiders were leading 14-3, was telegraphed from the start.

"When you lock down in that split, it's pretty obvious you know where he's going to run," Amerson said. "I just wanted to make sure I was close enough to the receiver and make a play."

In 12 possessions after the Raiders led 14-0, the closest they got to scoring was a missed 52-yard field goal by Sebastian Janikowski in the third quarter.

"We just couldn't get anything else going," Allen said. "Obviously, losing McFadden and Marcel hurt, but we've got to find a way to get some more offense going."

After an encouraging three games in terms of moving the ball with Pryor at quarterback, the Raiders were under 300 yards of total offense for the first time this season against a team that came in giving up 488.0 yards per game -- the most in the NFL.

The Raiders were 5 for 17 on third-down conversions, and two of those came on Flynn passes of 6 yards to Brice Butler on third-and-4 and 12 yards to Jennings on third-and-8 in their 10-play, 81-yard touchdown drive.

"We started out pretty well," Flynn said. "They made some adjustments on defense; after that we weren't converting third downs, and that was obviously the big issue."

Woodson had no issue with the fans booing and said, "If we continue to do what we did at points in today's game, we're going to hear those boos. It ain't going to stop."

"I could've done some things I could've done better. A lot of guys could've done some things they could've done better. We all take ownership. It's never just on one guy."

Sometimes home-crowd boos are silly and irrelevant. Sometimes they're just mean and reckless.

On this Sunday, the boos were the logical primal scream of Raider Nation: No more Flynn! (Who by the way is making $6.5 million this season and was brought in initially to be the starter. Whew.) Without saying it exactly, I think after the game Allen was essentially in frustrated agreement.

If Pryor can't play Sunday or if he is hurt again later, I think we'll see current third-stringer Matt McGloin at quarterback for the Raiders, not Flynn.

"Obviously, I don't think he saw the field very good today," Allen said of Flynn.

"I think he was obviously part of some of the sacks that we gave up in the game. It was a tough situation for him to go into, obviously with the loss of McFadden and Reece, that didn't help him out any ... Offensively we didn't get it done, and that's really the bottom line."

To his credit, Flynn stoically answered every question at his locker Sunday. But he still looked a little shell shocked and sounded washed out.

Did he agree with Allen's assessment that he wasn't seeing the field?

"I don't know -- I felt like I was seeing things fairly well," Flynn said. "I didn't think I wasn't seeing the field well. Just didn't make the plays."

He played, and no Raiders fan wants to see him do it again. Pryor didn't play, and the Raiders have to hope and believe he'll be ready Sunday, and into the future.

Because suddenly this whole franchise rides on Pryor's shoulders, at least for now. There is no other quarterback worth playing, or watching, or cheering.

It is funny how both articles made it seam like the "Don" Amerson pick six was all Flynns fault and gave no credit to David Amerson (or to the ref that picked the Raiders' WR).

No, the falut was all on Flynn, yet they didn't mention they got a gift with their first TD when the Perry Riley used the "ole" blocking technique on the rusher giving the Raiders a gift TD

Or the gift they got on the play prior to their second TD when Orakpo "Carlos Rogered" what should have been an INT and possibly a pick six. (on a side note Rob Jackson catches that ball and houses it)

"Dovie'andi se tovya sagain"
(It is time to roll the dice) Tai'shar Manetheren

"Duty is heavier than a Mountain, Death is lighter than a feather" Tai'shar Malkier

Amerson read the play, and positioned himself to make a play SHOULD IT come his way. It did... He did... and HE should get credit... it was an excellent defensive play. It was the kind of thing that quarterbacks don't start to see well until they have lots of time under center, true... but that would have happened to Pryor in exactly the same circumstance... Amerson would have read the route, and undercut it.

Countertrey wrote:Amerson read the play, and positioned himself to make a play SHOULD IT come his way. It did... He did... and HE should get credit... it was an excellent defensive play. It was the kind of thing that quarterbacks don't start to see well until they have lots of time under center, true... but that would have happened to Pryor in exactly the same circumstance... Amerson would have read the route, and undercut it.

Nope. If Pryor had played, that play would have been a touchdown, no doubt. If Pryor plays, obviously the skins lose. It is idiocy to deny this.

I know he got a pretty good zip on the ball. He has a quick release. . . once I seen a coupla' throws, I was just like 'Yeah, he's that dude.'"

Countertrey wrote:Amerson read the play, and positioned himself to make a play SHOULD IT come his way. It did... He did... and HE should get credit... it was an excellent defensive play. It was the kind of thing that quarterbacks don't start to see well until they have lots of time under center, true... but that would have happened to Pryor in exactly the same circumstance... Amerson would have read the route, and undercut it.

Nope. If Pryor had played, that play would have been a touchdown, no doubt. If Pryor plays, obviously the skins lose. It is idiocy to deny this.

skinsfan#33 wrote: Or the gift they got on the play prior to their second TD when Orakpo "Carlos Rogered" what should have been an INT and possibly a pick six. (on a side note Rob Jackson catches that ball and houses it)

I remember last year against the Saints in the first game of the year when Brees didn't see Orakpo drop back into coverage and threw a ball right in the middle of 98 and it just bounced right off his hands. They should spend every practice with this guy focusing on his coverage skills and working with the jugs machine.

Countertrey wrote:Amerson read the play, and positioned himself to make a play SHOULD IT come his way. It did... He did... and HE should get credit... it was an excellent defensive play. It was the kind of thing that quarterbacks don't start to see well until they have lots of time under center, true... but that would have happened to Pryor in exactly the same circumstance... Amerson would have read the route, and undercut it.

Nope. If Pryor had played, that play would have been a touchdown, no doubt. If Pryor plays, obviously the skins lose. It is idiocy to deny this.

I live here in California. My brother is a devoted Raiders fan. I know Pryors skill set. Passing is not one of them. I have seen plenty of Raiders football. Pryor is the better runner Flynn is the better passer.

Flynn presented the Redskins defense with a problem since we did not have film on him yet. We had film on Pryor who is mainly a scrambler. Much like Tim Tebow but faster yet a lil thinner.

Pryor rarely makes accurate throws. He is fast and can run. Thats about it.
So basically our defense would be trying to stop the running QB who cant pass worth a lick.

Thats a much easier task then trying to stop a passing game. I seriously doubt you have even watched Pryor play to make such an assumption to how we would of lost had Pryor played? I say it would of been worse had Pryor played.

skinsfan#33 wrote: Or the gift they got on the play prior to their second TD when Orakpo "Carlos Rogered" what should have been an INT and possibly a pick six. (on a side note Rob Jackson catches that ball and houses it)

I remember last year against the Saints in the first game of the year when Brees didn't see Orakpo drop back into coverage and threw a ball right in the middle of 98 and it just bounced right off his hands. They should spend every practice with this guy focusing on his coverage skills and working with the jugs machine.

Hopefully it's all academic since Rob Jackson is coming back and the next time a lb drops back in that area it will be Jackson.

"Dovie'andi se tovya sagain"
(It is time to roll the dice) Tai'shar Manetheren

"Duty is heavier than a Mountain, Death is lighter than a feather" Tai'shar Malkier

Countertrey wrote:Amerson read the play, and positioned himself to make a play SHOULD IT come his way. It did... He did... and HE should get credit... it was an excellent defensive play. It was the kind of thing that quarterbacks don't start to see well until they have lots of time under center, true... but that would have happened to Pryor in exactly the same circumstance... Amerson would have read the route, and undercut it.

Nope. If Pryor had played, that play would have been a touchdown, no doubt. If Pryor plays, obviously the skins lose. It is idiocy to deny this.

I live here in California. My brother is a devoted Raiders fan. I know Pryors skill set. Passing is not one of them. I have seen plenty of Raiders football. Pryor is the better runner Flynn is the better passer.

Flynn presented the Redskins defense with a problem since we did not have film on him yet. We had film on Pryor who is mainly a scrambler. Much like Tim Tebow but faster yet a lil thinner.

Pryor rarely makes accurate throws. He is fast and can run. Thats about it. So basically our defense would be trying to stop the running QB who cant pass worth a lick.

Thats a much easier task then trying to stop a passing game. I seriously doubt you have even watched Pryor play to make such an assumption to how we would of lost had Pryor played? I say it would of been worse had Pryor played.

Not gonna bust your balls about this response. It makes sense if you responded to it before you read the 2 after it. I was being sarcastic.

I know he got a pretty good zip on the ball. He has a quick release. . . once I seen a coupla' throws, I was just like 'Yeah, he's that dude.'"

Countertrey wrote:Amerson read the play, and positioned himself to make a play SHOULD IT come his way. It did... He did... and HE should get credit... it was an excellent defensive play. It was the kind of thing that quarterbacks don't start to see well until they have lots of time under center, true... but that would have happened to Pryor in exactly the same circumstance... Amerson would have read the route, and undercut it.

Nope. If Pryor had played, that play would have been a touchdown, no doubt. If Pryor plays, obviously the skins lose. It is idiocy to deny this.

I live here in California. My brother is a devoted Raiders fan. I know Pryors skill set. Passing is not one of them. I have seen plenty of Raiders football. Pryor is the better runner Flynn is the better passer.

Flynn presented the Redskins defense with a problem since we did not have film on him yet. We had film on Pryor who is mainly a scrambler. Much like Tim Tebow but faster yet a lil thinner.

Pryor rarely makes accurate throws. He is fast and can run. Thats about it. So basically our defense would be trying to stop the running QB who cant pass worth a lick.

Thats a much easier task then trying to stop a passing game. I seriously doubt you have even watched Pryor play to make such an assumption to how we would of lost had Pryor played? I say it would of been worse had Pryor played.

Not gonna bust your balls about this response. It makes sense if you responded to it before you read the 2 after it. I was being sarcastic.